Should we get rid of the "useless" ones?

Melissa Rivera5 said:DISCLAIMER
This is strictly a theoretical discussion. I’m not trying to promote racism, sexism, or any of that other stuff. I'm just curious...

POINT IS
So, I was thinking, maybe Hitler wasn't totally off base. Like, looking at people living with Down syndrome today, or those with severe disabilities and terminal illnesses... they aren't really contributing anything positive to society. Honestly, they just end up draining resources that we never see a return on. Don't you think forced euthanasia might actually be better for everyone in those cases? Let's try to look at this from both an individual and a group perspective—and let's try to stay STRICTLY logical here, instead of getting all emotional. From a group standpoint, it would probably be better to have fewer "weak links" due to bad DNA, but from an individual's view, I guess it's a ? maybe significant? crime.

Melissa Rivera5 said:DISCLAIMER
This is strictly a theoretical discussion. I’m not trying to promote racism, sexism, or any of that other stuff. I'm just curious...

POINT IS
So, I was thinking, maybe Hitler wasn't totally off base. Like, looking at people living with Down syndrome today, or those with severe disabilities and terminal illnesses... they aren't really contributing anything positive to society. Honestly, they just end up draining resources that we never see a return on. Don't you think forced euthanasia might actually be better for everyone in those cases? Let's try to look at this from both an individual and a group perspective—and let's try to stay STRICTLY logical here, instead of getting all emotional. From a group standpoint, it would probably be better to have fewer "weak links" due to bad DNA, but from an individual's view, I guess it's a ? maybe significant? crime.

Lisa Long said:To be specific: what does "benefit to society" even mean?
Strictly speaking, a human being isn't just a machine meant to function; we are living beings. Every living thing has a right to exist. Every human, especially. By simply existing, one fulfills their purpose. Besides, society spends far more money on trivialities—like weapons, marketing, fashion, cosmetics... all of which are useless. Are we going to start killing off makeup artists and influencers too?

Elizabeth Ruiz65 said:So if everything you just
listed is useless, what exactly is driving the modern capitalist machine? 😉

Lisa Long said:That system is pretty useless too. It might be better if nothing drove it at all.
But if you really want an answer: all of it—the influencers, the middle managers, the gold diggers, the stylists, the socialites, the DJs... it's all driven by NATO.

N/A;7588095 said:We aren't discussing what benefits an individual here, but rather what is
beneficial for society. Since we live in a capitalist society, anything that provides
capital is definitely not useless to it.

Society makes no sense without the individual. If you destroy an individual's happiness, you effectively kill the functionality of society itself.
Many people assume corporations are self-sufficient. They aren't. They should serve the individuals who pool their labor together, or at least satisfy greedy owners. It isn't an entity that an individual serves—at least, not for very long.

Quote:

In that context, it follows that people who contribute nothing to the system would be useless to it, especially since the system has to support them through social and healthcare services, instead of focusing on expanding new markets and exploiting local resources. What does "expanding new markets" actually mean? I guess those are just capitalist buzzwords. Just empty rhetoric. Phrases used to sound profound. There is really only one truth: we are depleting energy reserves that took millions of years to accumulate. We are living on credit. All this business jargon seems like mere self-delusion to me. And it isn't just about OIL; there is also the CFA, the IMF, the World Bank, the G7... =)

Without oil, all of that would fall apart within a month.

Melissa Rivera5 said:I mean, saying Hitler was right about absolutely anything feels like a bit of a stretch. If you look at the direct fallout from WWII, you get this massive wave of tech and medical breakthroughs. So, I guess, strictly looking at the results, there were some positive developments (though we definitely aren't talking about his methods here). It’s kind of like what Lisa Long was getting at regarding modern capitalism.
Regarding Stephen Hawking, he wasn't stuck in a wheelchair from day one; it was a progressive thing. Honestly, the only reason he’s still with us is because of the insane level of resources available to him—most people dealing with that kind of illness pass away way, way sooner. If he had started out in that condition, he probably wouldn't have ever had the chance to achieve half of what he did.
As for me, I’d define community usage as actively contributing specific types of resources. Like, using taxpayer money from social programs would be a really bad move. And yeah, I totally agree that dumping cash into the military is pretty stupid, but I suppose it's necessary until we actually manage to solve certain problems to a degree.

Society is meaningless without the individual. If you extinguish the happiness of the person, you effectively strip society of its functionality.
People seem to operate under this delusion that corporations are self-sustaining ecosystems. They aren't. A corporation should exist solely to serve the individuals who actually drive its labor, or at the very least, to satisfy the greed of its owners. It isn't some sovereign entity that an individual is expected to serve—not if you value your time.

What does "expanding into new markets" actually mean? It’s nothing more than capitalist jargon—just pouring empty air into a vacuum. Pure rhetoric. There is only one truth here: we are burning through an energy reserve that took millions of years to accumulate. We are living on credit. All these business buzzwords are just a collective exercise in self-delusion.

If we run out of oil, this whole thing falls apart in a month.

Elizabeth Ruiz65 said:

Society is meaningless without the individual. If you extinguish the happiness of the person, you effectively strip society of its functionality.
People seem to operate under this delusion that corporations are self-sustaining ecosystems. They aren't. A corporation should exist solely to serve the individuals who actually drive its labor, or at the very least, to satisfy the greed of its owners. It isn't some sovereign entity that an individual is expected to serve—not if you value your time.

Marx argued something similar, based on his belief in dialectical materialism and the proletariat.
As the supposed drivers of change, when exactly will they realize just how massive this scale truly is?
Exploited by capitalists, yet time has shown—unfortunately—that no matter how much...
Sure, capitalism might exploit workers, but can't workers just exploit it back even harder?
Is there anything more exhausting than enduring constant exploitation?

What does "expanding into new markets" actually mean? It’s nothing more than capitalist jargon—just pouring empty air into a vacuum. Pure rhetoric. There is only one truth here: we are burning through an energy reserve that took millions of years to accumulate. We are living on credit. All these business buzzwords are just a collective exercise in self-delusion.

Expanding into new markets these days mostly just means opening up transnational corporations.
Is there anything more predictable than a massive corporation moving into developing nations just to exploit an uneducated workforce? It’s a tired pattern. They roll into these third and fourth-world countries, set up shop, and take advantage of people who haven't been given the tools to defend their own interests. Is it even surprising at this point?
Workforces are being engineered toward a state of ignorance regarding their own rights, all while...
So that any injustices inflicted upon the workforce become less obvious. It isn't happening.
I’m not exactly out here trying to justify the system; I’m just pointing out how things actually work.
Don't go getting carried away with those idealistic notions. You need to find some actual ground to stand on.
It’s about more than just flirting with the concepts of a democratic constitution.

If we run out of oil, this whole thing falls apart in a month.

Have you even heard about the natural gas they’re planning to pump through those Russian pipelines into the country?
The rest of Western Europe? They’re claiming there’s at least another 250 to 300 years of that left.
And what about the years ahead?

Expanding into new markets nowadays mostly just means opening up transnational corporations.
It feels like certain corporations just target developing nations to exploit people who haven't had access to proper education. I guess that's just how some companies operate. It seems like a pattern.
Maybe there's an intentional effort to keep the workforce from fully realizing their rights, while simultaneously...
Maybe if we make sure the injustices faced by the workforce aren't so obvious, things might actually start working. I guess it won't happen easily, though.
I'm not trying to justify the system. I'm just pointing out how things actually are.
Don't get carried away with idealistic notions. I guess we really need to find some solid ground to stand on.
It’s not just about flirting with the ideas of a democratic constitution.

I guess you haven't heard about the plans to bring natural gas in through those Russian pipelines into the country.
The rest of Western Europe, they say. And apparently, there's enough left for at least another 250 to 300 years.
What about the next few years?

Melissa Rivera5 said:So, regarding this whole cancer thing... I guess I'll just tell you what my uncle said when he first got his diagnosis: if I'm only got six months left, then honestly, don't even bother treating me! If I'm going down, I'm going down. Cancer isn't necessarily a death sentence anymore. I'm talking about those cases where people are just stuck, barely hanging on, almost like plants that just drain everyone's bank accounts and put their families through absolute hell. And yeah, I know, my parents would probably kill me and sue me if they heard me saying that.

Are you actually trying to justify that?
If it weren't for Marx, the social safety net wouldn't even exist. We'd still be living under pure exploitation. Sure, things are slightly better now, but we can really just credit technology—which, ironically, relies entirely on OIL!

So, in short, you're advocating for injustice and the exploitation of the poor... wonderful.
And how would you react if I suggested that I'm personally advocating for using people like you as fuel to heat my apartment?

There's plenty of oil, as you love to point out. But that isn't the answer. The solution is to stop burning fossil fuels since they're heating up the planet, and for people to learn some modesty and live in harmony with nature. Nature is nature. We can't do anything to it. It always adapts. But that adaptation won't be particularly friendly to the degenerates, DJs, socialites, managers, and the rest of the human scum accustomed to luxury.

Melissa Rivera5 said:DISCLAIMER
This is strictly a theoretical discussion. I’m not trying to promote racism, sexism, or any of that other stuff. I'm just curious...

POINT IS
So, I was thinking, maybe Hitler wasn't totally off base. Like, looking at people living with Down syndrome today, or those with severe disabilities and terminal illnesses... they aren't really contributing anything positive to society. Honestly, they just end up draining resources that we never see a return on. Don't you think forced euthanasia might actually be better for everyone in those cases? Let's try to look at this from both an individual and a group perspective—and let's try to stay STRICTLY logical here, instead of getting all emotional. From a group standpoint, it would probably be better to have fewer "weak links" due to bad DNA, but from an individual's view, I guess it's a ? maybe significant? crime.